I've been doing a lot of reading, and watching videos the last few weeks about this case.

I'm now firmly if the opinion that David Payne holds the key to this whole mystery.

His testimony of what happened between 5pm and 7pm on May 3rd is littered with inconsistencies, couple this with the gaspar statements and you've got a worrying combination. Also, look at the protection he has received, both from Leicester police, and from the press.

I believe DP was in 5a during mid to late afternoon on the 3rd, and this is when MM died, she was then left in situ for a little while, whilst a plan was hatched.

In his statements, DP is overly keen to emphasise that the kids were alive and well - too keen. This to me serves as confirmation that MM died before 630pm.

This then calls in to question the game of tennis and DPs fleeting visit to the beach restuarant.

I believe MM was disposed of as soon as darkness fell that evening. I believe DP was involved in the accident or whatever killed MM, but he then had a hand in bringing Murat in on events.

You're right PB. Plus.... He rang a child protection units number the night Madeleine went missing (someone else will clarify exactly what it was), Yvonne Martin who worked in child protection thought she recognised him from her work, whilst DP was keen for no-one to speak to her, the Gaspar statements, his like for bathing the children on a previous holiday, his talk of a 'pact'.

In fact, did he turn up at 5a at that time to bathe the children that night?

Would you protect a man like him if your daughter went missing on that holiday and you knew nothing of the above?

‘Concerning the day yesterday, she went to the beach with the children, her son-in-law and her daughter. They arrived there at around 3.45pm and left at around 6.15pm to go to the tennis courts where she stayed until 7pm. The informant then went to the apartment with the small children and ten minutes later, her son-in-law, David, joined them. With her son-in-law's help, they bathed the children.’

Fiona Payne 4th May 2007

'Yesterday they slightly altered their routine, they went to the beach with the children and her mother Dianne. They arrived there around 15H45 and left at 18H15, and headed towards the tennis court until about 19H00. Immediately afterwards, the witness headed towards the apartment with her children, and her mother. Ten minutes later her husband David appeared. In the apartment her mother, helped by her husband David, bathed the children whilst the witness went jogging on the beach until around 20H00. Afterwards, she returned to the apartment and got ready. She left around 20H45, accompanied by David and her mother, in order to meet the rest of the group in the Tapas restaurant.'

David Payne 4th May 2007

No mention

Yet RO suggests something different, she went to the beach with the other girls but no mention of David till they got there.If MO & RO'B were sailing, why would David have been with them?

Rachel Oldfield 11th May 2007

'After the game of tennis, the witness returned home to rest, her husband (Matthew) and RUSSEL having gone to the beach of Luz to sail. At about 15:45, her daughter having woken up, she took her to the beach of Luz in the company of DIANE, Jane, Fiona and their respective children, where they found MATHEW, RUSSEL and DAVTD. At 17H30 the children dined in one of restaurants by the beach, [she] not having detected any abnormal or strange situation.'

@margaret wrote:You're right PB. Plus.... He rang a child protection units number the night Madeleine went missing (someone else will clarify exactly what it was), Yvonne Martin who worked in child protection thought she recognised him from her work, whilst DP was keen for no-one to speak to her, the Gaspar statements, his like for bathing the children on a previous holiday, his talk of a 'pact'.

In fact, did he turn up at 5a at that time to bathe the children that night?

Would you protect a man like him if your daughter went missing on that holiday and you knew nothing of the above?

@margaret wrote:Plus.... He rang a child protection units number the night Madeleine went missing (someone else will clarify exactly what it was)

Why would a guilty man do this?

Because he was frightened. Do you think it was his decision to cover up what happened?

No, my own view is that he is only on the periphery of whatever happened but I don't follow your reasoning. If DP was the sort of person that the Gasper statements might be perceived as implying, and if he is in some way implicated in what happened to Madeleine, why would he ring child protection services? It doesn't make any sense. Yet you seem to be suggesting that its suspicious behaviour. I don't understand why I should regard the ringing of child protection as a red flag. To me it points the other way.

@margaret wrote:Plus.... He rang a child protection units number the night Madeleine went missing (someone else will clarify exactly what it was)

Why would a guilty man do this?

Because he was frightened. Do you think it was his decision to cover up what happened?

No, my own view is that he is only on the periphery of whatever happened but I don't follow your reasoning. If DP was the sort of person that the Gasper statements might be perceived as implying, and if he is in some way implicated in what happened to Madeleine, why would he ring child protection services? It doesn't make any sense. Yet you seem to be suggesting that its suspicious behaviour. I don't understand why I should regard the ringing of child protection as a red flag. To me it points the other way.

Do we know the specifics of which child protection agency he rang?

I put a lot of credence on the Gasper statements as it was not an easy decision to make given they were not only reporting another doctor (which is sacrosanct) but also involving their 'friends'. Why did DP phone child protection? Don't think he ever satisfactory answered that question. All imo

David Payne's witness statement to Leicestershire Police 11th April 08

DC Messiah

"Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth"....... (concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.)

DP

"Err, there are a few things but I don't think this is the right forum for bringing those up".

DC Messiah.

"OK"

So why is David Payne withholding evidence? By his own statement he has important information on what happened to Madeleine. Did the Leicestershire Police follow this up? If not why not?==================================================

I have been 'banging on' about Payne's 'FEW THINGS' for YEARS now!

When are we going to hear that DCI Mahogany has ASKED Payne about the 'few things' Payne KNOWS that he considers 'pertinent and RELEVENT, to ESTABLISH the MATERIAL TRUTH, about a 3 years old child's 'disappearance'?

If we believe the link above; we don't know who he called, or what department it was.. but no matter; what if the agency was compromised? i.e., what if there were people there, known to DP/GM, who had managed to gain a position that enabled them to protect/subvert/support child-abusers?

By making the call DP inadvertently shone a light on a relationship between GM/DP and the Met/SOCA/whatever it was. A relationship that should never have existed.

If the paedophile angle to this saga is correct, this would be a plausible reason for 'the establishment' to mobilize it's support and start covering its tracks. The Met in particular is renowned for being corrupt, and for its unceasing efforts to cover up the crimes-from-within. A clumsy (or deliberate?) phone-call forced the establishment to protect the mccann's, in order to keep a lid on the bigger scandle back at home

"Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth"....... (concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.)

DP

"Err, there are a few things but I don't think this is the right forum for bringing those up".

DC Messiah.

"OK"

So why is David Payne withholding evidence? By his own statement he has important information on what happened to Madeleine. Did the Leicestershire Police follow this up? If not why not?==================================================

I have been 'banging on' about Payne's 'FEW THINGS' for YEARS now!

When are we going to hear that DCI Mahogany has ASKED Payne about the 'few things' Payne KNOWS that he considers 'pertinent and RELEVENT, to ESTABLISH the MATERIAL TRUTH, about a 3 years old child's 'disappearance'?

It sounds to me like he was either angling to do a deal in exchange for providing information, or he had the goods on someone else of importance, and was hinting that he wanted to talk to someone with more authority than this police officer.

I can't imagine this comment of his being ignored. Is it possible he made additional statements which haven't been released to us?

@phil_burton wrote:I've been doing a lot of reading, and watching videos the last few weeks about this case.

I'm now firmly if the opinion that David Payne holds the key to this whole mystery.

His testimony of what happened between 5pm and 7pm on May 3rd is littered with inconsistencies, couple this with the gaspar statements and you've got a worrying combination. Also, look at the protection he has received, both from Leicester police, and from the press.

I believe DP was in 5a during mid to late afternoon on the 3rd, and this is when MM died, she was then left in situ for a little while, whilst a plan was hatched.

In his statements, DP is overly keen to emphasise that the kids were alive and well - too keen. This to me serves as confirmation that MM died before 630pm.

This then calls in to question the game of tennis and DPs fleeting visit to the beach restuarant.

I believe MM was disposed of as soon as darkness fell that evening. I believe DP was involved in the accident or whatever killed MM, but he then had a hand in bringing Murat in on events.

All my opinion of course!

So this theory suggests that DP was in the apartment with M on the afternoon of the 3rd and she dies as a result of something going on there, or whilst something is going on there?Do we have the times of DP's 'fleeting ' visit to Beach restaurant Paraiso? I think we seem him leave and it is around 5.30pm but do we see the time he arrives?

Also, if you check the missing pages on the PJ files it does consider there could have been more than one statement from DP. I didn't know there was one never mind the possibility of more. There seems to be a lot held back relating to child abuse and the p word.IMO

It would obviously be interesting to see earlier shots, but presumably the PJ had access to them but they were not released for whatever reason.

Thanks Doug D!

So Matt was already there (one of the girls lol) but stood up to allow DP access to his seat (does that indicate DP had already been there sitting down previously? dont know) . Anyway, I still think that the visit may have been strategically planned to enable them to be caught on the CCTV (but why?). Then DP left about 20 mins later (I think). There was social tennis session planned for early evening. Where were Mc Canns at the time the others were in Paraiso?

"Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth"....... (concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.)

DP

"Err, there are a few things but I don't think this is the right forum for bringing those up".

DC Messiah.

"OK"

So why is David Payne withholding evidence? By his own statement he has important information on what happened to Madeleine. Did the Leicestershire Police follow this up? If not why not?==================================================

I have been 'banging on' about Payne's 'FEW THINGS' for YEARS now!

When are we going to hear that DCI Mahogany has ASKED Payne about the 'few things' Payne KNOWS that he considers 'pertinent and RELEVENT, to ESTABLISH the MATERIAL TRUTH, about a 3 years old child's 'disappearance'?

If we believe the link above; we don't know who he called, or what department it was.. but no matter; what if the agency was compromised? i.e., what if there were people there, known to DP/GM, who had managed to gain a position that enabled them to protect/subvert/support child-abusers?

By making the call DP inadvertently shone a light on a relationship between GM/DP and the Met/SOCA/whatever it was. A relationship that should never have existed.

If the paedophile angle to this saga is correct, this would be a plausible reason for 'the establishment' to mobilize it's support and start covering its tracks. The Met in particular is renowned for being corrupt, and for its unceasing efforts to cover up the crimes-from-within. A clumsy (or deliberate?) phone-call forced the establishment to protect the mccann's, in order to keep a lid on the bigger scandle back at home

Can anybody tell me who is behind Madeleine - The Truth forum formerly Regrets and Ramblings formerly the 3As? A very dramatic U-turn without much substance to justify the change of opinion.

The link you posted seems to be a bit of a double sided coin, depending on the viewpoint. This person is apparently defending DP but at the same time seems to be dropping him well and truly in the mire. My opinion of course!

If this is her, she also appears in the 17.46.07 shot, so didn’t get too far on her run. I don't know if there are any other pictures of her wearing a top like this anywhere.

She was also supposed to be at ‘high tea’ with GM and the kids at about 17.20/17.30, although she didn’t come up with this in her statement until 6th September 2007.

There was no suggestion of this or the run in either KM or GM statements of 4th May and in GM’s statement of 10th May:

Tennis court ‘vacancy between 14H30 and 15H30. As it was already 15h00, they began to play immediately. At 15H30, the tennis instructor arrived, who taught them a class until 16H30.They stayed there, talking, until 16H45, at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the nannies and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE dined, having finished at 17H30.

It is also noticeable that in the first two statements it describes what the usually did around tea time, not what they actually did.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...

Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM, retired Met Commissioner: "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."